Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40369522›Full record

ReviewBMC medical ethics2025

A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.

David Bauer, Devin A Orchard, Philip G Day, Marc Tunzi, David J Satin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David BauerUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Devin A OrchardUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Philip G DayDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Marc TunziFamily Medicine Residency, Natividad Medical Center, 1441 Constitution Boulevard, Salinas, CA, 93906, USA. tunzim@natividad.com.
David J SatinDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Minnesota Academy of Family Physicians BauerOrchard2304APR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare research have received substantial attention over the past three decades. Although financial COI (FCOI) has an extensive literature, publications about non-financial COI (NFCOI) are comparatively rare. Disagreements surrounding the importance of NFCOIs in research and publication, including whether competing non-financial interests should even be considered COIs, present significant gaps in the literature. This lack of clarity prompted our literature review's aim to determine the current consensus about how NFCOIs should be treated in healthcare research and publication.

methodsWe searched the PubMed database using MeSH terms and keywords to identify articles published before November 6, 2023 about NFCOI in biomedical research and publication. We applied relevance, appropriateness, transparency, and soundness (RATS) criteria to develop a final dataset of 206 publications and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed major themes and conclusions regarding consensus within the field.

resultsThe literature centers around fundamental disagreements about (1) whether competing non-financial interests constitute COIs like FCOIs, (2) whether they need to be addressed in research, and (3) whether they should be managed with disclosure or with other strategies. Despite these disagreements, the balance of evidence and arguments suggests that (1) NFCOIs are meaningful conceptual entities like FCOIs [96%], (2) they require management [76%], and (3) disclosure is necessary but insufficient [55%] or necessary and sufficient [27%] as a management strategy.

conclusionThe topic of NFCOI enjoys far less attention and consensus compared to FCOI's robust body of literature developed over decades. We found general agreement about the relevance of NFCOIs and the need to address them, but not how to do so. Our results are consistent with Wiersma et al., the first review on this topic. Taken together, these reviews suggest a path forward for researchers, publishers, and healthcare professionals requiring new approaches for NFCOI management.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchConflict of InterestHealth Services ResearchPublicationsPublishingDisclosureHumansConflict of interestEthicsInstitutionalIntellectualNon-financialPersonalPublicationResearch

Identifiers

PMID40369522
PMCPMC12080049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.